Went “as expected” … i.e. was completely the
opposite of
what was reasonable.

When we arrived, the case was listed for a
Circus of
Magistrates.

But (as I expected), they were ready for us
this time … so
they very quickly moved to case to a Circus with a District Judge.

Background

On the 3rd February we were given
until Monday 24th
to initiate an Appeal against a faux ‘conviction’.

We applied for the Appeal, and – last Saturday
(22nd)
- a letter arrived – FROM THE CROWN COURT – saying that the
initial stages of
the Appeal would be heard on the 14th March.

That being the situation … the case had moved
from the
Maggot’s Circus to Crown Court. Thus the Maggot’s Circus, in
Southern Derbyshire,
was either:

(a)No longer involved … OR

(b)If they wanted to keep some
kind of ‘hold’ - they
would need to adjourn until sometime after the 14th
March.

Whatever the situation, it had to be one or the
other. And
it had to be some kind of Rubber-Stamp Job in the Maggot’s Circus.

However, you would not think so, the way we
were treated.

Foreground

In short, we arrived and pointed the Usher to
the original
Listing, and said we are here for that case.

The Usher started to pull out some kind of
‘form’ (from a
pack of them), and said: “In
that case
will you fill out this?”.

I said: “No”,
and
walked away.

She went: “Oh?” …
and walked away as if she were sulking.

Then we were told the case had been moved to
another Circus Room
… so we went and sat outside it.

I could see it listed as “Remand Court”.

Another Usher came out, and we went through the
“Are you … “ business
(as usual). I
showed her the Berth Certificate (as usual).

So SHE started sulking!

I showed her the letter from the Crown Court,
and managed to
transfer it to her unwilling hand, saying “You
may not have had time to go through your post, but this explains
the situation.
You know that a case can’t be running in two places at the same
time”.

She
said: “I don’t know about
that … I’m not legally
trained”

You just couldn’t make them up, could you?

A few minutes later she comes out with the
bullshit: “The Clerk is too
busy at the moment. It’s a
very busy Court!”, and throws the letter back at me.

So, I went downstairs, and got it photocopied.

I went back upstairs and, the next time she
re-appeared, I
handed her the photocopy, and said: “I’ve
had this copy specially made for you. You can give to the Clerk
when he has
time … for example when they break for lunch. No, I don’t want
it back. You can
keep it. I made it for you”.

She disappeared, and came out, saying: “I’ve been told to tell you that, unless the Legal
Fiction Person Named
is here, then the case will be heard without anyone being
allowed to speak. You
can sit at the back, and see what happens, but you will not be
allowed to speak”.

So, I thought: “Fine …
let’s all go then, and let’s get on with the Private Criminal
Prosecution
against the original Maggots in Chesterfield”.

Unfortunately, I was overruled by the gentleman
who was the ‘subject’
of all this … even though my intuition was screaming: “Get the hell out of here!”.

He said: “Well,
let’s
wait and see what happens”.

I said: “NOTHING
is
going to happen … NOTHING that we can make any difference about
… we’ve been
told. There’s absolutely NO POINT in us being here. They will
do, what they
will do”.

Fuck it! WE WERE AHEAD OF THE GAME … they had
the letter …
and we were free an clear! And we could have stayed that way, by
leaving when I
said so.

But no! We sat there, and went to the “Coffee
Machines Area”,
and sat down.

Suddenly the Usher appeared, threw the letter
on the table,
and said: “I need to give
this back to
you for a minute”.

I said: “Exactly
which
minute?” … but she walked away.

I WAS FURIOUS!!!! From being 1 – 0 up, and
looking at an “away
win”, we were now back to 1 – 1!!!

(SHIT!!!! I wish people would LISTEN TO
ME!!!!!)

Finally it was agreed that we should try to
give the letter
back to the Usher.

I said: “That’s
impossible
now. You will never get that letter back into her hands. THEY
ARE
OBVIOUSLY SHIT-SCARED OF IT. We should have left when we had the
chance”.

Anyway, one of our number did try. The Usher
came out, and
when approached with the letter, she scuttled away … like a
frightened rabbit.

Never seen someone so afraid of a sheet of paper.

So, we left the letter tucked into the Listing
Notice, and went
home.

And I made an arrangement to meet Michael
Doherty, in Luton,
that evening.

Which we did, by driving down from Derbyshire
(and
eventually went back to Derbyshire).

Michael has provided lots of useful
information, which we
are now progressing … largely regarding the Crown Court Appeal.
BUT … ALSO …
the possibility of creating a Private Criminal Prosecution –
against the
Chesterfield Maggots, “somewhat along” the following lines:

INDICTMENT

COUNT
1

STATEMENT OF
OFFENCE

Misconduct
in Public office contrary to The Common Law

PARTICULARS OF
OFFENCE

On 12TH DECEMBER 2013
you DEFENDANTS NAMED
sat to hear Case Number 301300238654, and conducted proceedings.
During those
proceedings you were told that you had no jurisdiction to
arbitrate the matter,
by virtue of being told “There is no case to answer”, and that
you were not
granted Power of Attorney to enter any plea. Nevertheless you
proceeded to
create a conviction, which was unlawful because you were given
no jurisdiction
so to do. This created a Tort against the Man, commonly called
John: of the
family M, causing him to unnecessarily defend himself against a
conviction
which was illegal, unlawful, and void ab
initio.

COUNT 2

STATEMENT OF
OFFENCE

Perverting
the Course of Justice contrary to The Common
Law

PARTICULARS OF
OFFENCE

Sometime between the dates 12TH
DECEMBER 2013 and 3rd FEBRUARY 2014 you DEFENDANTS NAMED
underwent some form
of unlawful administrative process in order to cancel your
decision made on 12
DECEMBER 2013, and substitute a different conviction with the
same sentencing
attached. This constituted a fundamental defect in the entire
process, and increased
the Tort against the Man, commonly called John: of the family M,
causing him to
unnecessarily defend himself against a conviction which was
illegal, unlawful,
and void ab initio.

Anyway,
that’s the
way it stands, right now.

Michael has told me that, when applying for a
Private Criminal
Prosecution, it is also necessary to add a Covering Note
explaining the
discretion that they have when deciding to sign (or not).

(I’m still waiting for a copy of the sort of
Covering Note
one needs to provide).

I’ve also been told that one can write to the
Maggots
Circus, and request the following information – which they are
‘duty-bound’ to
provide (except for Rule No. 1: THEY DON’T OBEY THEIR OWN RULES”),
HOWEVER:

1.The names of the Maggots
and the Clerk who sat
at the Hearing.

2.A copy of the Clerk’s
Notes, which are made
during the Hearing.

3.A copy of the Maggots “Case
File”.

4.On payment of £10, a
Subject Access Request,
under the FoI Act, in which the “Named Defendant”
is mentioned, and
in which the Case Number is mentioned. (But Note: As far as I can
recall, they would
have 40 days to respond to this).

5.With regard to (4), above,
a Crown Court Judge
can order disclosure of any and all of that information …at the start of the Appeal?
Or, at least, I
think that’s true.

Well, that’s where it sits (currently).

They.

Don’t.

Like.

It.

Up ‘em.

There
is more.

1.I have reasoned that, for
the Maggots to pluck
Power of Attorney out of their arseholes (as they do) … it is a
form of Identity
Theft. Which is a crime. And it’s about time that they
were stopped
from that criminality. That’s
what the first
Count on the Indictment, above, is all about. It may very
well be “Their
rule” (that they can do that), but: IS THAT RULE ETHICAL?
And, I suggest,
ONLY A JURY CAN DECIDE THAT.

If you want to run a system
that is HONOURABLE,
and provides JUSTICE … you can’t do that if any of the Rules are
not ETHICAL.

If you try to obtain Power of
Attorney – so
as to act on behalf of an elderly relative (mother/father, etc),
then you would
have to obtain a Psychiatric Assessment, which would need to say:
“They would know what they
were doing, if
they Assigned PoA over to you”. That being the case, then
how come the
Maggots can just pluck it out of their arses?

I fail to see the essential
difference
between plucking PoA out of their arse, leading to a conviction
and fine of
£745, and direct THEFT of your
Debit Card + Pin
Number to deduct £745 directly out of your Bank Account.

2.I have also reasoned that
it is long past time
we were able to make our own recordings (audio at the very least).
Michael has
a situation which would be resolved if we had been able to do
that. Once again,
I believe we need to get this aspect in front of a Jury.

3.We need to get it
established that “Anyone with VALID
PoA” can ALWAYS speak & represent. Yet another ‘rule’ that
should be
decided by a Jury. The System HATES Lay Advocates and
Litigants-in-Person … because
they can only be threatened with Contempt of Court (and not loss
of Licence/livelihood!).
And, once you know what Contempt of Court is, you can’t even be
threatened with
that!

4.Also, apparently,
(according to Michael ... who believes what he reads) there things
‘They’ think are
wrong … which – according to their rules – you are “Guilty” just
by doing it … whether you intended to, or not. In
other words,
according to “Their Rules”, you can be guilty without any Mens Rea.

NO … OF COURSE YOU CAN’T!
There HAS to be
INTENT!

But ‘They’ say: “You are guilty because you are liable”.

Something else we need to sort
out via a
Jury. Reason? The Law has been designedNEVER to punish GENUINE, HONEST mistakes (because EVERYONE
MAKES THEM!).
And “Their Liability Rule” doesn’t allow for that.

Anyway, that’s what I think. If we could
establish those
things (and also Leon’s Law regarding Body-worn State Mercenary
Cameras), we
would be well on the way to sorting a whole lot out.